XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/27/2025 6:05 PM, dbush wrote:   
   > On 10/27/2025 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 10/27/2025 3:12 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>> On 10/27/2025 3:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/27/2025 2:40 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/27/2025 3:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/27/2025 2:20 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 10/27/2025 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/27/2025 1:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> A straight forward sequence of steps that any   
   >>>>>>>>>> C programmer can easily determine:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> int DD()   
   >>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Why would I look at this, rather than your complete work   
   >>>>>>>>> that can execute?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> This is not even a complete program; there is no HHH definition.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Because I have changed the subject to this   
   >>>>>>>> and will not discuss anything else because   
   >>>>>>>> this supersedes and overrules anything else   
   >>>>>>>> that anyone can ever say on this specific point.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> *It doesn't take a fucking genius to follow this*   
   >>>>>>>> HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this   
   >>>>>>>> again and again until HHH figures out what is up.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And HHH doesn't correctly figure that out as proven by Kaz's   
   >>>>>>> code, which you are on record as having agreed with (see below).   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Repeating a previously refuted point is less than no rebuttal, and   
   >>>>> further confirms that you agree that Kaz's code proves that HHH   
   >>>>> doesn't correctly "figure out what's up" as you have previously   
   >>>>> admitted on the record:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I am only referring to these fifteen lines   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A straight forward sequence of steps that any   
   >>>> C programmer can easily determine:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> int D()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);   
   >>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>> }   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Then you have nothing as this is incomplete and cannot be run.   
   >>   
   >> It is this mental execution trace that you keep   
   >> erasing dip shit:   
   >>   
   >> HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this   
   >> again and again until HHH figures out what is up.   
   >   
   >   
   > Repeat of previously refuted point (see below).   
   >   
   > Repeating a previously refuted point is less that no rebuttal.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > On 10/26/2025 9:38 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >  > On 10/26/2025 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >  >> On 10/26/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >  >>> On 10/26/2025 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >  >>>> On 10/26/2025 8:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >  >>>>   
   >  >>>> int DD()   
   >  >>>> {   
   >  >>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >  >>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >  >>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >  >>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >  >>>> }   
   >  >>>>   
   >  >>>> HHH(DD) simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to do this   
   >  >>>> again and again until HHH figures out what is up.   
   >  >>>>   
   >  >>>>   
   >  >>>   
   >  >>> And HHH figures it out incorrectly as proven by the code posted by   
   > Katz.   
   >  >>>   
   >  >>   
   >  >> You can't even get his name correctly deep ship!   
   >  >> (A less contentious way of say dip shit).   
   >  >>> If you disagree, point out exactly where Kaz's code is in error.   
   >  >>>   
   >  >>> Failure to do so in your next reply or within one hour of your next   
   >  >>> post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-the-record   
   >  >>> admission that Kaz's code conclusively proves that the DD that HHH   
   >  >>> simulates will halt when simulated enough steps and therefore that   
   >  >>> the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting computation.   
   >  >   
   >  > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made no attempt to show how the   
   >  > code posted by Kaz proves that the DDD that HHH simulates will halt.   
   >  > Therefore:   
   >  >   
   >  > Let The Record Show   
   >  >   
   >  > That Peter Olcott   
   >  >   
   >  > Has *officially* admitted:   
   >  >   
   >  > That Kaz's code conclusively proves that the DD that HHH simulates will   
   >  > halt when simulated enough steps and therefore that the input to HHH(DD)   
   >  > specifies a halting computation.   
      
   *plonk*   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)